Sunday, 15 November 2009

Can the Climate Change Debate Wait?

Iain Dale has done a small blog on the Times report that a climate change poll that shows that 'Britain’s Are Unconvinced'.

See this extract from Iain Dales blog
‘A poll for The Times shows that only 41% of people accept that global warming is taking place and is largely man-made. Thirty two per cent believe the link is not yet proved. Eight per cent say it is environmentalist propaganda and 15% say that the world is not warming’

This has highlight a concern I have, which is, will the left hijack the green debate and in doing so change public opinion.

I don’t have any problem with the British these statistics. The British people are a cynical bunch as am I, We can’t help it and it’s too our credit I believe. Problem is that Climate change is real. It’s about scientific consensus. You never get a 100% scientific following on all but the most certain of subjects, like say gravity.

I agree with Iain Dale that the debate is not over. But can we wait until the debate is won by the obvious (the actual events caused by climate change); what if we wait too long and bang it’s too late. Do we wait until London is flooded or until there is no ice cap in summer? Sorry to sound dramatic but how long do we wait if it really is happening as I believe it is?

The most important job of government and infact the UN is surely to protect its people. Sometimes the government must take action that the people don’t agree with for the good of the people. We elect a government to do the right thing based on the principles and policy.

Some people believe that the green agenda is about increasing taxes against the rich. Imagine how much climate change will cost when it’s really in full swing. Imagine the affect it will have on the economy and future taxation. Let along the effect on our lives and migration.

Some people believe there is climate change but it’s not affected by the human intervention. They think its naïve to think that humans have or are affecting the world’s climate. Its naïve to think that we are not! There are now over 6.5 billion humans using resources to varying degrees. Huge amounts of industrial waste and pollution. With acres of rainforest being cut down every day and plenty of carbon gases produced etc etc. How can this not be having an effect?

I don’t believe we should use only taxation we need a carrot and stick approach not unfair taxation. Some more imagination in green policies can’t hurt.

Unfortunately I do need a stick to get myself to change my ways. I mean I did cycle to the shop today and have those rubbish light bulbs but I still drive to work and use plenty of electricity.

Now I’m not part of some leftist agenda. How could there be an agenda on something which would say if it didn’t happen would destroy the left forever. If there is a left agenda I say to them. Don’t highjack the green agenda for some unfair tax rises directed at your non voters, we all need to fight climate change and high jacking the agenda will not help to fight climate change. We must get people on our side not hit them over the hard head. Oh and don’t make it a religion of choice

To the right I say ignore the left agenda and don’t deny climate change because of the left. It will cause you some pain but this will stop you from having a much greater pain in the future, please work with us. Don’t deny it just because its easier too ignore the problem in the short term. Even if climate change was not man made, should we not be doing what we can to ensure it doesn’t get out of hand? We can also ensure more energy security through using alternative forms of energy.

If you want too see for yourself the change in the north pole sea ice please examine this link here from the Earth Observatory NASA.

Bookmark and Share


  1. This time, the world will actually end.

    This time, as opposed to every single other time in the history of the human race, the world will actually end unless we do exactly what the millenarians want...

  2. Catastrophic global warming is, as you know, a complete, total & deliberate fascist lie promoted only by wholly corrupt politicians trying to scare people.

    It is supported by no liberals & virtually all members of the murdering pro-Nazi party calling themselves "Liberal Democrats".

    Or perhaps you are going to produce some eviden ce that the globe is warming rather than cooling as a ll the scientific evidence shows?

  3. I was reading an interesting article this weekend about how phytoplankton blooms are prospering in wider areas of the oceans as they open up and how the effect of this is likely to be a major mitigating factor in devastating climate disaster.

    Anyway, coming from meterological family (before the Met Office moved to Exeter), I find it hilarious that anyone questions that the climate is changing on any timescale, but I do think there is much to be debated in concluding what the outcome of those changes will be, and that it is a major political issue to deal with them.

    We do face some big choices and it is important that our decisions are not framed by ignorance or fear about what might happen. Whether we like it or not we will be held responsible by future generations on all fronts.

  4. I always get it wrong *meteorological

  5. 2008 saw what NASA called the Sun’s “blankest year” where 266 of the year's 366 days, there were no sunspots. Sunspot counts for 2009 have been very low, too. This all begs the question: does solar activity have a long-term effect here on Earth? Times of depressed solar activity correspond with times of global cold. From 1645 to 1715, few if any sunspots were seen and Western Europe entered a virtual deep-freeze known as the Little Ice Age. Times of increased solar activity have corresponded with global warming. The 12th and 13th centuries, when the Sun was active, European climate was quite mild. Experts predict that the current solar cycle will peak in 2013 with a below-average number of sunspots. The Sun should remain calm for at least another year. Of course, all this disruption is caused by the lighter-than-air carbon dioxide America has produced in the past few decades. These light gases rise to the sun and disrupt the magnetic causes for sunspots, altering the averages of sunspot activity. The effects on the under developed world is extreme, causing wars, famines and revolutions which disturb the compassionate dictatorships and the order they provide. It must stop! America must be shut down by the Obama Administration, beginning with elimination of the middle class and all its outrageous demands for goods and services.

  6. neil craig - not every think you know is actually fascist and believe it or not nore are the lib dems. Infact that statement alone does put you in a bad light if you believe that there is no climate change, lets see what happens when you under 6 foot of water.

    Oranjepan Do ou have a link to this article, could you post it here please. Thank you

    Clay Barham of course is very complicated and we can run as many models as we like, we wont know the effects until it really hits home. But I think the elimination of the Middle class is going way too far. perhaps better birth control in all parts of the world would do us more good rather than wiping out the current populations

  7. I think its becoming fashionable to become a climate change denier

  8. Read 'The Last Generation' by Fred Pearce - A very insightful wake-up call with scientific facts dating back thousands of years & based on very real research into climate change & its effects!!

  9. I personally believe that climate change is man-made and is happening right now, and that the scientific evidence supports that. However, if you pretend that climate change is not man-made then:
    - What are we going to do about the new climate on our planet? Will islands and our coastlines disappear? What do we do with the refugees? Will it affect our ability to feed our population?

    And, if you are a total climate change sceptic who feels that a) The climate isn't changing at all. b) And even if it was, it isn't man-made:
    - We still have a problem with peak oil, it will run out at some point. How do we deal with that Surely we need to become more energy dependent? Wind? Solar?

    As for the conspiracy theorists who feel that it's just an excuse to tax us all. I'm not sure that really washes, as you only have to look at something like aviation fuel (0%) to see that.

  10. Hi Daz,
    will this do?

    Just one feedback loop, but don't take it that changes in the climatological cells and the latitudes they operate at won't have serious effects.

    Accordingly, every mile that organic plant life further encroaches the polar regions is balanced out by reduced capacity in the carbon sink further south.

    However because there are different surface areas at different latitudes, different amounts of sunlight can be absorbed in photosynthesis and this means the overall ability to remove carbon from the atmosphere is reduced.

    So what we gain is only a fraction of what we lose.

    The sunspots theory is an interesting one and fits with the idea that numerous independent factors each with different cyclical lengths are at play in causing our weather, but that doesn't help the overall calculations because to emphasise one factor fails to take account of all the others.

    Add all the competing theories together and the evidence still tends in the same direction, but in not quite as extreme a fashion as some of the doom-mongers would have us believe with their hype.

    But neither is it any excuse for complacency.

    I can fully understand the scepticism of those who make accusations of a politicised agenda, but that is true in both the pro and anti camps.

    So I wouldn't worry about Neil Craig, he's working on his stand-up act. It's called 'bitterness'.

    For me it's not a question of is this massive, distant, invisible process over which I have no power happening any timescale, or not. I prefer to think of more tangible aspects which have an impact on my life and how I can change these.

    So, for example, whenever I spend the day in London I can smell the pollution. I had a cold the other week and everytime I sneezed I could see the black sooty specks from the accumulated car exhausts which I (and everyone else) was breathing.

    That is reason enough for me to be concerned.

  11. Mr Craig

    Go back to your silly little OISM paper

    your playing with the big boys now. People who know the science. Don't start waving that OISM crap about as if it means anything. You obviously have NO IDEA of the contents of the paper and how they have been ripped to shreds over the last 11 years by a multitude of scientists including the NAS themselves. The OISM paper was shamefully written to hoodwink people. Fortunately there are many cleverer people out there than in the paltry ranks of the OISM - just check them out people and get ready to laugh...

  12. "Playing with the big boys now.. people who know the science" mous - what a silly remark for somebody who hasn't the guts to identify himself to make.

    Perhaps no more silly than Daz's "if you believe that there is no climate change, lets see what happens when you under 6 foot of water." Clearly he is ignorant even of his own case since the IPPC now say sea level rise will be 15 inches by 2100.

    For those LibDems who don't know what fascism is (almost all) it includes a philosophical belief that opposing views should not be allowed & that always "the debate is over" on whatever the government believes. The term eco-fascist is the correct one for those who oppose an airing of the facts or indeed that we should be forced to put up with their parasitism.

    Note that another mous (gosh you have a lot of them) referred to me as a "denier" - a silly term whose only purpose is to pretend that sceptics are related to Nazis. Obviously every person who honestly objected to my use of the correct term eco-fascist here has equally objected to that one.

    When one is reduced to nothing more than ad hominum attacks, as demonstrated here, it is obvious one has nothing else. So lets see if somebody - anybody at all in the entire party - can actually debate on the science?

  13. Neil,
    if you do wish to debate the issues, then perhaps you could refer to the link I posted.

    Otherwise it makes plain your interest lies in scoring rhetorical points.

    I shall also point out that what you describe as 'fascism' is more accurately 'authoritarianism'. Although the latter is a component of the former your inaccuracy diminishes the memory of those who suffered and died under it.

    While I can forgive blundering inaccuracies your comments are designed to be offensive and you should apologise.

  14. Neil

    My 6 foot of water comment was a quick quip not a statement of fact. Although if the sea did rise by 15 inchs then some places would be 6 foot under (those below sea level).

    I have Read your blog on the Nazi Lib Dems before. I have to say why single out us when we actual were not in power and the Lib Dems. Why not the Torys or the UN. Seem like an agenda to me.

    As per Oranjepans comment you should apologise. I would not call you a Nazi or a fascist unles it was ofcourse justified

  15. Neil, ok I just read the blog were you called the Lib dem Nazi's after looking at the other post I now realise you think all the main Parties are Nazi's.

    Totally Amazing and natually totally wrong

  16. Neil reply left on Iain Dales web site by myself,

    I dont know where you think the lib dems instructions are coming from. But I would not adhere to any instructions anyway. We are not paid we pay them. So I would never take instruction from the Lib Dem leadership. Also no where does the lib dem membership state that supporting this genocide is a condition of party.

    I infact am a liberal in that I believe in free markets and small government leaving people free to be productive.

    I of course like you am not a scientist so can like you only make up my mind on global warming using the evidence. Which yes is on both sides of the fence but overwhelming on the Man made global warming side. However I would never say that anyway can’t express their believe that there is no global warming, that is for people to make their own minds up as indeed both you and me have.

  17. I don't care if anyone beieves in Global Warming and Climate Change, I'm more concerned with the fact that the world's fossil fuel supply is declining, and that nobody in power is willing to address this fact of life. We CANNOT carry on as we are, our lifestyles will have to change to adapt to this new reality, and any attempt to sustain the unsustainable is a fools errand. The current economic model of constant, exponential growth is defunct, and will contstantly be contracted by the declining fuel supply, no matter how much money the Governments of the day throw at the collapsing system. Wake up people, and understand, the end of life as we know it is at hand.

  18. Sylvia,
    have you considered the many answers science can already provide but which the wider public is ignorant of? For instance I quite like this one

  19. read the front page news of yesterday's Independant Newspaper via this link
    and ask them to please come to the demo in London on 5th December to make sure our procrasting politicians and leaders do somerthing sensible about it at the Copenhagen Conference on the 12th december !
    This requires long overdue action under the precautionary principle.
    Silvia Vousden is right.
    Our lifestyles do have to change drastically.
    The risks of insufficient action are far too great to live in hope that all the best climate scientists are wrong.
    If you have children or grandchildren they will have to live through this global disaster that we are still in the stupid process of creating.
    If we dont act strongly very soon now - they will quite rightly blame us for our grave errors of judgement in the past!

    Watch the film "The age of stupid"
    if you need any more convincing!

  20. I am the Green Party General Election candidate but this blog has nothing to with my Party. Details of the London March on 5 Dec can be found on the stopclimatechaos website. Speeches should start in Grosvenor Square at noon and the March starts at one. It will be over by 4.30 pm but people will start to drift off from 3 pm onwards. If you've not marched before this will be legal, fun and very important.

    My wife and I and a group of friends will be catching the 0959 out of Bracknell station. We'll be in the third carriage from the front, having purchased a one day travel card. I'll be wearing a dark green polonecked jumper and a blue jacket. For identification purposes I'll be wearing a green rosette but I'll remove this after we leave Ascot station so as to confirm that the March is NOT a Green Party event. Hope to meet you. Best wishes, David Young

  21. Thanks David, I really want to go, I have been told by a number of people about it including my own party. And this is a very important march, Problem is im away in north wales at a small festival. Massive shame would of been good to of met you too.

    Thanks Hopefully next time

  22. Look, many scientists have been measuring the CO2 levels in the atmostphere for decades now, and examining long past CO2 levels from air bubbles trapped in ice cores. They have proven that they have gone up rapidly and continuously since the start of the industrial revolution and that they are still rising faster and faster. The only explanation is all the fossil fuel burning that us humans have been doing.
    There is no other logical reasonable practical sensible possible scientific or any other reason for this to happen.
    If you can just accept this as a indisputable fact we are halfway there.
    Now, we are left with whether or not CO2 causes a greenhouse effct in the atmostphere and therefore causes global warming.
    A simple scientific experiment that has been done proves that it does so quite easily.
    This experiment puts an infra-red camera (i.e a camera that seees heat not light) at one end of a cylinder that is initially full of air. A lighted candle is placed at the other end.
    To start with the image of the hot candle flame can be clearly seen. As C02 gas is bled into the cylinder the image of the candle flame fades and gradually disapears as the concentration of CO2 in the air increases. This proves that CO2 absorbs and reflects back the heat from the candle. The very same mechanism means that the CO2 in our atmostphere acts like blanket over the whole planet trapping heat and causing global warming. The more the concentration of CO2 the more the warming.
    There are several other many times more powerful greenhouse gases than CO2 at work that have the same effect - unfortunately! But, fortunately they are still at far lower concentrations in our atmostphere. However, one of these gases is methane, and if we thaw out too much of the permafrost in the far north due to too much global warming we are in grave danger of massively accelerating global warming in a thermal runaway situation due to the release of methane gas.
    This is one very real concern and it is genuinely a serious problem. There are several other thermal feedback effects that we have to worry about too.
    I do hope this convinces you of the need for action. In case it doesn't, may I also add that we humans are going to run out of oil very soon, natural gas soon after that, and coal not so very long after that. Since the population and consumption of energy keeps going up and these natural resources keep going down.
    These things simply wont last for ever. Our planet is finite and its reserves of these are finite too!
    We have simply got to find alternative energy sources - sooner rather than later - anyway! Since the only other options we have do not produce much CO2, if any - what exactly is the very good reason that people can possibly have for resisting the actions now being called for in the name of climate change to cut down on CO2 emissions by burning far less fossil fuels?